Search for: "Downs v State" Results 4481 - 4500 of 40,838
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2022, 8:50 am by Tess Bridgeman
It grew more complex as an array of state and non-state actors took sides in Assad’s civil war and terrorist groups also began vying for territory and control. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 6:48 am by Jim Dempsey
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in its 2009 United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Seats could revert down to the norm of 9 if vacancies occur, provided that the presidency at the time had had an opportunity to make one appointment. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:07 am by Russell Knight
“When an objection is made, specific grounds must be stated and other grounds not stated are waived on appeal… An objection to evidence on the grounds of prejudice or relevance cannot be raised for the first time on appeal” Akers v. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 9:01 pm by Caroline A. Crenshaw
Thank you Hal [Scott] for that kind introduction and for inviting me to speak today. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 5:01 am by Farzaneh Badiei
But how is Apple’s App Store governed in the two nation-states? [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 6:15 pm by Mridula Raman
Breyer tried to pin down the precise category of mid-proceeding orders that would likewise become appealable. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm by Public Employment Law Press
If this first set of maps is rejected, the IRC is required to prepare a second set that, again, would be subject to an up or down vote by the legislature, without amendment (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm by Public Employment Law Press
If this first set of maps is rejected, the IRC is required to prepare a second set that, again, would be subject to an up or down vote by the legislature, without amendment (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 12:56 pm by Eugene Volokh
Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984) (requiring that a facially content-neutral ban on camping must be "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech"); United States v. [read post]